RATLIFF v. MCDONOUGH , No. 21-1618 (Fed. Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-1618 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 02/18/2022 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ HENRY F. RATLIFF, Claimant-Appellant v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2021-1618 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 19-6568, Judge Joseph L. Toth. ______________________ Decided: February 18, 2022 ______________________ MEGHAN GENTILE, Veterans Legal Advocacy Group, Arlington, VA, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by HAROLD HAMILTON HOFFMAN, III. SARAH E. KRAMER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.; EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Y. KEN LEE, Office of Case: 21-1618 Document: 46 Page: 2 2 Filed: 02/18/2022 RATLIFF v. MCDONOUGH General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ Before HUGHES, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Henry Ratliff appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, denying Mr. Ratliff’s claims for disability compensation due to tinnitus. On appeal, Mr. Ratliff argues that the Veterans Court misapplied its own precedent regarding credibility determinations and erred in making its harmless error determination. Because Mr. Ratliff’s arguments both involve an application of law to fact, they are beyond our jurisdiction to consider. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED No costs.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.